asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information whether he will consider using the knowledge and experience of the large advertising firms to put out propaganda in its most convincing form?

Yes, Sir; in fact, the Ministry have already begun to do so.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of In- formation whether he will publish as a White Paper translations of all the leaflets hitherto distributed in Germany and release them to the press?

My noble Friend does not think that it would be worth while to lay a White Paper, as translations of all the leaflets have already been published.

I am afraid that we on these benches must oppose this Resolution. We have taken no exception to any of the preceding nine Resolutions and have allowed them to pass without any opposition. We might, of course, have taken strong exception to them on the ground that whetherthey are luxuries or not they do impose on the working class section of the population very large additional burdens to their weekly budget. We have not taken that view; we have not pointed out that these Resolutions, although they are taxes on superfluities, are taxes on the standard of life of the people, because we recognise that there is some case for putting a burden on and calling for sacrifices from all sections of the people. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer must himself realise that this question of sugar is in a different category.

Let me review the position of this tax. As I understand it, in the course of a full year it represents, roughly speaking, 10s. per head of the population, so that in an ordinary family of five people, if you allow for the consumption of sugar by the household in various ways, it will represent something like £210s. per year to that family. It may be that 10s. is a little too much but, roughly speaking, this new burden which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing represents Isa week on an ordinary family. Moreover this impost cannot be regarded in isolation from two other facts. In the first place, it must be within the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the price of sugar, quite apart from this duty, has been steadily rising throughout the whole of the year. I saw a statement that it had already risen since April by over 1d. per 1b., and the effect of this further Id. will be to double the cost of sugar as compared with what it was only as recently as April of the present year. The other factor which is relevant to our considerations is that it is not the only item of essential working class expenditure which has gone up and which is likely to go up in the course of the next few weeksor months. Therefore, we are faced with this position, that there is a definite and a not inconsiderable rise in the cost of the bare necessities of life falling upon the working section of our population.

I am not going to suggest that the better-paid artisans and workers in the country have no margin whatever, and that an imposition of Is. here and there is going to deprive them of their sustenance. I have no desire to overstate the case, and, indeed, to do so would be wholly wrong, but I do suggest that there are sections of the population of whom that is true. No one can possibly deny it. There are the people who are paid exceedingly low wages, then those who are unemployed and have to accept unemployment support, receiving very small amounts of money, and then there are the old age pensioners. It is for these classes that I am speaking now. I believe that my hon. Friends, much as they dislike the whole principle of the sugar tax, would not have thought it right to go to a division, as we propose to do, if it was only going to fall on the better-paid workers of the country. It is going to fall not only on that class but on the lowest classes of all and, therefore, we feel it necessary to make our protest. As I said yesterday, evacuation has shown what was not known to a very large number of people in the country before, the dire conditions which poverty imposes on certain sections of our population. This war, terrible as it is, can only be supported by our people in the hope of having a better world after it is over than we had before, and it would be a sorry line of thought if it became known that the nutrition of our children and of certain sections of our people was to be gravely injured by the methods we adopt to finance it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us no indication that old age pensioners, on the one hand, who are right down at the bottom, all the lowest working class families in receipt of very low wages or the unemployed people on subsistence levels, are going to receive any compensation to meet this additional cost on the necessities of life. We have had no such assurance, and as we realise that this tax will place upon large numbers of families a genuine burden, deprive them of necessities and lower their standard of existence, we feel compelled to oppose it.

The position to-day with regard to sugar and a number of other articles is quite different from what it is in ordinary times. In ordinary times, the purchase of sugar and its disposal to the wholesalers and retailers, and finally to the public, is in private hands. That is not the case at the present time. I understand that the whole purchase of sugar from abroad is entirely in the hands of the Government. I am not at all sure that the Id. which the Chancellor proposes to place on sugar represents the whole of the Government's takings which go to make up the final cost of sugar. From what I have heard, I am not sure that the Government are not, in addition to this Id., increasing the price of sugar by making a margin between the price which they pay in buying from abroad and the price at which they sell to the next people in the line before the sugar finally reaches the consumer. If that be so, it is an additional point. It may be that the Chancellor will be able to set our feelings at rest on that, or it may be he will ascertain from other Departments what is the position in that respect. But quite apart from that, we cannot regard this Id. increase as being justified.

Hon. Members opposite always resent any statement from these Benches that we are the representatives of the working classes, and that they are the representatives of richer sections of the community. I recognise that hon. Members opposite would not be there if they did not receive quite a large number of votes from people in humble circumstances. I put it to hon. Members opposite that, in the interests of the lowest class section of the population, the people who are on or below the margin line of poverty, they should bring pressure to bear upon the Chancellor. As a united House of Commons we should say to him that we are willing to accept sacrifices from the rich and sacrifices from other sections of the population which are above the poverty line, as being to some extent a share in the general sacrifices that have to be made, but that sacrifices from those people who are below the poverty line, which can mean only a loss of vital strength and health and lead to a weakening of the nation in the days that are to come, we will not allow at any cost.

I should like to begin by-saying that I recognise fully the sincerity and moderation with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has expressed his protest. He was quite right when he said, in his concluding observations, that although we sometimes view-one another as though we were speaking for different sections of society, all of us in times like these know in our heart of hearts that we arc all trying to take a view for the whole of the British community. There is nothing I would like better than to give expression to that very natural feeling by giving way on this tax. I am no more a lover of this form of taxation than anybody else, but I must state briefly why it is that I am obliged to impose it and why it is that, in spite of what has been said and what no doubt will be said, I must ask the House to confirm the view of the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that this tax will impose on the working class section of the population a disproportionate burden. I have often said, in speaking on taxation, that while direct taxation calls for a most tremendous and swingeing contribution from those having higher incomes, at the same time indirect taxation, by its nature, gets a contribution from people on all sorts of scales of living, and consequently, it is true that the proportional exaction in the case of the working class population, if one takes this tax by itself, will be more serious than it will be in the case of people who have more to spend. The right hon. Gentleman's figures were perhaps not quite accurate — I do not complain in any way, for he was using round figures — but naturally, I have done my best to have the figures worked out, and as a matter of fact, this duty of Id. will represent as near as may be 8s. 6d. per head of the population per year. Of course, 8s. 6d. per head per year is for some people quite a serious matter. We are all of us thinking of some people to whom it may even be a very serious matter, but clearly it is not a serious matter to another section of the population. It is the attempt which we have to make all together to get contributions all round which, in my view, makes it necessary to have an indirect tax of this sort.

I have examined with every care the alternatives that were available, some of them old ones and some of them new ones; and it may well be that I shall incur in many quarters a reproach because I have not found some substitute. I do not think it would be right — and I believe the judgment of a great many people in the country will be with me here — that our indirect taxation should be limited simply to the people who smoke and drink. It is inevitable that we should choose some mode of contribution, which does call for sacrifice it is true, but which does cover every sort of home. For that purpose, I came to the conclusion that this is the one which we must adopt. The greatest possible efforts are being made by the Government to restrain rises of prices. There has never been in our history anything like the complete organisation which is now working with that object. Sugar is a case in point.

Prices have gone up.

I am not saying that you can entirely prevent prices from going up. Of course you cannot in all cases prevent prices from going up.

But you can prevent pensions going up.

This is a serious matter, and I was answering the hon. Member who interrupted first. It is perfectly true that in the course of these difficult times prices will rise, and what I am saying is that very great efforts are being made to prevent that — efforts which are far more effective than have ever been made in any other war. In point of fact there will, no doubt, be, or there is likely to be, some restriction in the consumption of goods. That is not a matter for my department, but, of course. we are all interested in it, and we are endeavouring in relation to these staple commodities to see to it first that there is no profiteering — and a very effective machine is being worked for that purpose — and, secondly, we are trying to secure that the distribution of what is available shall be fair. We do not want to give people with one kind of income one kind of ration and people with another kind of income another kind of ration. There has to be a fiat ration.

But when it comes to the suggestion— because this really was the suggestion — that we should not have as a part of these drastic proposals for taxation an indirect tax which no doubt imposes on the working class section of the population a burden and a sacrifice, a tax over and above what I may call taxes on drinks and smokes, then I am sorry I cannot agree. I have put this Budget together with the best effort I could, in order to try to distribute these undoubtedly very serious burdens over the whole population. I have done that as well as I could. There is, of course, a limit to human ingenuity, and I wish somebody could show me in this matter how to do it better. [Hon. Members: "Land Values."] I have no doubt many people will tell me that they could do it much better by special inspiration. But I have to stand for the whole plan as I have made it, and I hope very much that when hon. Members opposite have made their protest, they will recognise that I took my ground in this matter from a high sense of public duty and not from any unwillingness to appreciate the difficulties to which they have called attention. It is true that at the lowest end of the scale there are people to whom this addition, which may seem small to some of us, is quite serious. I am not disputing that. It is true that the imposition of such a duty does very minutely increase the figure of the cost of living. I think I am right in saying that it increases it by about 1.6 points, which is very minute indeed. But for the reasons I have stated I do not think we ought to refuse to impose this burden of sacrifice, serious as it may be to some people, as part of the scheme of the Budget, and I greatly regret that I am unable to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House, but I am bound to express my disappointment with the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the appeal from this side for the withdrawal of the proposed addition to the Sugar Duty. I am totally opposed to indirect taxation. I believe that the burden of taxation, even in peace time, ought to fall heaviest on the shoulders which are best able to bear it. I think the Chancellor in this case could have found some other method of getting the amount which he anticipates from the increased Sugar Duty, and of getting it from other sections of the community who can better afford to stand the strain than the working class people. Every housewife knows that the price of sugar has gone up to a very great extent. Sugar is a staple article of diet, particularly in working-class homes. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that he is hitting more particularly in this proposal at the house-wives of the country, because there is scarcely anything prepared by cooking which does not require sugar, and it is also used largely on the table. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said, this will hit the housewives and also the old age pensioners who find comfort in a cup of tea and who, like myself, are fond of sugar in their tea.

It will hit another section of the community of whom we hear very little, although some of us have put questions in regard to them in this House and have got little satisfaction in the replies. I refer to soldiers' wives who are trying at the present time to cater for families on wholly inadequate allowances, and whose whole domestic life has been disorganised by the calling up of their husbands. The Chancellor said that this additional taxation would amount to about 8s. 6d. per head per year, which his, approximately, 2d. a week. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be conversant with the demand for sugar in the ordinary household, week by week, or he would not put it as low as that. There are very few housewives who do not use a great deal more than 2 lbs. of sugar each week. In any case we are disappointed with the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that our protest will be carried into the Division Lobby in order to show the country that we object to this heavy imposition on the poorest section of the community

I desire to make two remarks on the points which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in opening this debate. He dealt with the question of nutrition in relation to this matter. Of course, the medical profession would be opposed to anything which diminished the nutrition of the people, especially of the poorest classes and those who are the most ill-nourished and who most require nourishment. The last speaker said the average incidence of this tax would be an extra 2d. per week. That is the average, but I think many of us know that well-to-do households and luxurious hotels, and those who cater for luxury people, use an enormous amount of sugar — far above the average per head which has been indicated. I would submit that the poorer classes of people cannot afford anything like the average which has been mentioned, and that the average for them must be a good deal less than 2d. per week. Of course, it will vary as between different households. There are those who feel it necessary to have very sweet tea and who, consequently, find it necessary to use more sugar than others. But the average must be less, on the whole, for the poorest classes than it is for the luxurious classes of people who spend a great deal of money on amenities.

Let us consider what proportion of this sugar is devoted to real nourishment and what is used for amenity purposes, or is actually used in a way which is deleterious. Something like one-half the Sugar Duty is raised from sugar which is used for purposes of manufacture. It is largely used in the manufacture of confectionery, but it is used in other ways as well. For instance, the beer industry uses sugar to a large extent. But leaving aside other forms of manufacture, let us consider the question of confectionery in which a very large amount of sugar is used. Confectionery is very largely used even by the poorest children and the poorest people. The one thing on which the medical profession have been united more than on anything else in trying to save the health of the people is, as we all know, in the effort to save their teeth. — [Laughter.] —Do not laugh. It is the dental cavity which is at the root of rheumatism and innumerable troubles, and all those who have been dealing with public health in local government have been seeing to what extent they can extend the dental services and have regretted that these services have not yet shown how to prevent cavities.

What is clear is the enormous damage that is done to children by confectionery. It is known very clearly all along the line that it is the constant sucking of sweets and leaving the residue in and around the roots of the teeth that is so detrimental. [Interruption.] It is a matter of common knowledge, and hon. Members opposite can ask any medical officer of health or anyone with knowledge of preventive medicine or dentistry whether that is not the case.

Does the hon. Member really argue that the people at the bottom end of the scale, those upon whom this tax will most severely fall, are people who eat so much sugar as to endanger their health?

Yes. Go 1o any sweet shop in the poorer parts and ask whether that is not so. It is a matter of common knowledge. It is natural for the ordinary parents to give their children a penny or two pence to spend on sweets, and hon. Members know that that is the case. This very serious contribution should come equally from the other side as from this side, and we ought not to look at sugar as merely a question of nutrition, but as something which has done a very large amount of damage. Therefore, while I do not doubt that this tax will fall heavily even on those who confine the use of sugar to nutritive purposes, at the same time the burden is very slight — far less than 2d. a week, and probably more like a penny a week, for the majority of people. I ask those who like sweet tea to try the experiment which was forced upon me when I was in Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, of having to take tea without sugar. I found that when you once get accustomed to it, the pleasure of having tea without sugar quite compensates for the pleasure of having tea with sugar. We cannot for a minute admit that the whole of the sugar burden is merely a question of nutrition, as a great deal of damage is done to the teeth through the use of sugar.

I listened with interest to the appeal made by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) with regard to those at the lower end of the income limit, and there is no doubt, from the point of view of the old age pensioners and the unemployed, that the task of rearranging their household budget will, to a certain extent, create very great hardships; but in looking at their position, we must bear in mind that over the whole population of this country their numbers are comparatively small. I think the House would do better to look at the requirements made on the ordinary working man and woman, and not forget that the average household consists of a man, his wife, and three children. The contribution required by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is something like 10d. or Is. from such a household. It is difficult for a man, a wife, and three children to rearrange their expenditure to pay that additional is., but I believe that it is a sacrifice which the ordinary man and woman of this country are quite prepared and willing to make. It is not more difficult to make the necessary adjustment on that income than it is to make it on a much greater income. It is extremely difficult for a man who has a house rent, an insurance premium, and school fees to pay to find the additional amount which is demanded from him in this Budget, and it is just as difficult, but no more difficult, for the working man with his family to rearrange his expenditure in the small way that is required of him. I hope that we shall be willing to do two things — to accept this as a very painful necessity, and to accept it unitedly, but at the same time, when this war has been won, to agree as unitedly that this shall be one of the very first things to disappear from the nation's Budget.

I hesitate to begin by saying that I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view put forward by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), because so many people begin by saying that, and then the rest of their speeches seems to indicate that they are not prepared to make any very practical contributions towards proving that sympathy. But I feel that this question is being approached by hon. Members opposite from the wrong end of the stick. The great majority of people who are called upon to pay this sugar tax admittedly can pay it. We were told that a great deal of it is used in luxury trades and luxurious hotels, and nobody on any side of the House wishes to let these people off their obligations, and because one section of the community cannot afford to pay a particular duty, it does not seem to me to be fair to the Chancellor to ask him to give up the yield of the tax from sections which can. Therefore, I wish that hon. Members opposite would rather concentrate their efforts on making it possible for the old age pensioners in particular to be able to meet the increased taxation.

We are doing that.

I am very glad to hear it, as I am sure that the Government will pay considerable attention in these days to representations made to them with authority from the other side of the House. If this increase of 2d. a week on an old age pensioner for this particular duty is accepted, coming with the other increases made, you are getting a still stronger case than you had before for an increase in the pension, and I would ask hon. Members opposite not to oppose this additional duty, which can very well be paid by the great majority of the people who will be called upon to pay it, but rather to say that this is an additional reason why some increase should be made in the old age pension.

I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and I agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he stated his case in a very temperate way. I think that there can be hardly anyone who listened to his speech who did not feel very considerable sympathy with much that he said, but it seemed to me that there was one weak point in his argument, to which, not unnaturally perhaps, he did not refer, but which really invalidated the whole of it. We are engaged in a life-and-death struggle, and great sacrifices are being called for. Burdens such as the liability to military service and powers for purposes of civil defence which interfere with the ordinary livelihood of civilians — these, we have to accept. If this Resolution were defeated and the increase were taken out of the Budget, the position would be that anyone who does not pay indirect taxation, does not smoke or drink alcohol, would not be called upon to make any extra contribution by way of taxation. When the right hon. Gentleman and his friends take up that attitude and do not put forward any practical alternative, it illustrates the reason why there are so few members of the Labour party in the House, because in these fundamental matters they fail so completely to interpret the real feelings of the great mass of the people. I do not believe there is any evidence that the mass of the people feel that this tax is unfair. Admittedly in some cases it is a substantial burden, but I believe that in the circumstances it will be cheerfully borne.

I am sorry to be at variance with some of the remarks which have been made from this side of the House. When my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) talks about representing the real feelings of the people on the question of this tax, I would like to mention an incident which occurred at my house last night. A woman, an old age pensioner, came and asked me what we were going to do about raising the pension. She gave me her weekly budget, which was as follows. Her rent is 4s. 6d. She pays 6d. for some assistance